Pilot deviations and a new FAA reality

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:32:38 -0400, BuzzBoy
wrote in ::


The FAA is filling up with incompetent minorities
That is your big problem

Don't all government employees have to pass the same employment test?
FAA applicants are only given 5% for prior military service and an
additional 5% for a Purple Heart, so there can be a maximum 10%
advantage given to those applicants. But other than that, the playing
field should be level.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:32:38 -0400, BuzzBoy
wrote in ::


The FAA is filling up with incompetent minorities
That is your big problem

Don't all government employees have to pass the same employment test?
FAA applicants are only given 5% for prior military service and an
additional 5% for a Purple Heart, so there can be a maximum 10%
advantage given to those applicants. But other than that, the playing
field should be level.


When I took the entrance exam back in the late '80's, FAA was "fast
tracking" certain types of applicants. These included women and minorities
but not white males. The idea was apparently to speed up the hiring process
of certain personnel types. Exam score played a lesser role in this hiring
process than it might have otherwise. For example, I scored a 98 on the
civil service controller entrance exam. To this was added an extra 5% for
military service, which gave me a 103 on a test where 100 was the top score.
This put me in the top percent of the huge pool of applicants. However, it
didn't appear to do anything to speed up getting hired. I sat around for
months. Then, I went to the Persian Gulf War. As soon as FAA realized I
was in theater, they "fast tracked" my application and I had a job waiting
on me when I returned. As soon as I was discharged from active duty, I had
a job interview literally within 30 days. Within 90 days I was hired and
with 150 days I was at the Academy. In the meantime, scores of other
"fast-tracked" minority and female applicants with lower test scores had
been hired before me.

When you start applying for staff and management jobs, your minority status
or lack thereof becomes a huge factor. Management has been mostly white and
male since the CAA days. There has been a 15 year push to "normalize"
management by promoting women and minorities over white males, so that FAA
management "reflects the face of America." These days, the nickname
"Fast-track" is derisively applied to our ATC "stars" who spend a year or
two as controllers and then get "promoted" into traffic management or the
supervisor ranks. They are literally like the shake and bake staff NCO's
and 2nd Lieutenants of the early '70's.

In spite of this push, it has to be pointed out that the FAA is currently
*still* being run by a host of incompetent conservative, reactionary white
male feather merchants in upper and middle management. Good controllers
control airplanes. Poor controllers run as fast as they can from
controlling airplanes. The guys currently running FAA from the helms of
upper and middle management were among the worst controllers of their
classes. Also, they have received little to no training in management.
They were promoted under the white male good-old-boy yes-man brown-nosing
patronage system, just as bad IMO as promoting on the base of race or gender
rather than merit, which neither method seems to consider as the primary
qualification. That is our big problem, and it hasn't changed since 1981.

I'm starting to believe that the US Government ought to create a job
specialty called "FAA Management", offer high initial pay, and start
recruiting MBA college post-graduates strait into FAA management. Promotion
out of the ATC ranks would be limited to first level supervisor. The MBA
kids could then slowly start taking over the helm and all sub-departments of
managing the federal air traffic control system. The ATC feather merchants
these MBA's replace could either get a headset and return to work as a line
controller, or they could leave federal service with a swift kick in the
ass. This would leave air traffic controllers to control traffic, allowing
the government to fire or demote the weak controllers instead of promoting
them. Maybe then, FAA would do a hell of a lot better at not wasting tax
money on poorly managed technology projects and poor operational budgeting.
Also, it's possible that people trained in business management at college
would be more savvy at labor relations then the current crop of failed
controllers running the system. At least they would know that it is good
form to kiss labor before you screw labor. Finally, we could privatize all
of the ATC towers across the country. This would allow FAA to move swivel
heads from privatized FAA towers out into the field, where they would serve
as desperately needed radar controller reinforcements at critically
understaffed FAA Tracon and ARTCC facilities, saving the government a wad of
money in controller personnel costs.

Chip, ZTL

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:17:46 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote in
. net::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:32:38 -0400, BuzzBoy
wrote in ::


The FAA is filling up with incompetent minorities
That is your big problem

Don't all government employees have to pass the same employment test?
FAA applicants are only given 5% for prior military service and an
additional 5% for a Purple Heart, so there can be a maximum 10%
advantage given to those applicants. But other than that, the playing
field should be level.


When I took the entrance exam back in the late '80's, FAA was "fast
tracking" certain types of applicants. These included women and minorities
but not white males. The idea was apparently to speed up the hiring process
of certain personnel types. Exam score played a lesser role in this hiring
process than it might have otherwise. For example, I scored a 98 on the
civil service controller entrance exam. To this was added an extra 5% for
military service, which gave me a 103 on a test where 100 was the top score.
This put me in the top percent of the huge pool of applicants. However, it
didn't appear to do anything to speed up getting hired. I sat around for
months. Then, I went to the Persian Gulf War. As soon as FAA realized I
was in theater, they "fast tracked" my application and I had a job waiting
on me when I returned. As soon as I was discharged from active duty, I had
a job interview literally within 30 days. Within 90 days I was hired and
with 150 days I was at the Academy. In the meantime, scores of other
"fast-tracked" minority and female applicants with lower test scores had
been hired before me.

When you start applying for staff and management jobs, your minority status
or lack thereof becomes a huge factor. Management has been mostly white and
male since the CAA days. There has been a 15 year push to "normalize"
management by promoting women and minorities over white males, so that FAA
management "reflects the face of America." These days, the nickname
"Fast-track" is derisively applied to our ATC "stars" who spend a year or
two as controllers and then get "promoted" into traffic management or the
supervisor ranks. They are literally like the shake and bake staff NCO's
and 2nd Lieutenants of the early '70's.

In spite of this push, it has to be pointed out that the FAA is currently
*still* being run by a host of incompetent conservative, reactionary white
male feather merchants in upper and middle management. Good controllers
control airplanes. Poor controllers run as fast as they can from
controlling airplanes. The guys currently running FAA from the helms of
upper and middle management were among the worst controllers of their
classes. Also, they have received little to no training in management.
They were promoted under the white male good-old-boy yes-man brown-nosing
patronage system, just as bad IMO as promoting on the base of race or gender
rather than merit, which neither method seems to consider as the primary
qualification. That is our big problem, and it hasn't changed since 1981.

I'm starting to believe that the US Government ought to create a job
specialty called "FAA Management", offer high initial pay, and start
recruiting MBA college post-graduates strait into FAA management. Promotion
out of the ATC ranks would be limited to first level supervisor. The MBA
kids could then slowly start taking over the helm and all sub-departments of
managing the federal air traffic control system. The ATC feather merchants
these MBA's replace could either get a headset and return to work as a line
controller, or they could leave federal service with a swift kick in the
ass. This would leave air traffic controllers to control traffic, allowing
the government to fire or demote the weak controllers instead of promoting
them. Maybe then, FAA would do a hell of a lot better at not wasting tax
money on poorly managed technology projects and poor operational budgeting.
Also, it's possible that people trained in business management at college
would be more savvy at labor relations then the current crop of failed
controllers running the system. At least they would know that it is good
form to kiss labor before you screw labor. Finally, we could privatize all
of the ATC towers across the country. This would allow FAA to move swivel
heads from privatized FAA towers out into the field, where they would serve
as desperately needed radar controller reinforcements at critically
understaffed FAA Tracon and ARTCC facilities, saving the government a wad of
money in controller personnel costs.

Chip, ZTL


Thank you for the information. I wasn't aware of the FAA fast-track
"normalization" practice. Personally, I'd prefer hiring of
safety-critical personnel to be based SOLELY ON MERIT, but with the
pro veteran bias policy long in place, the door was open to open it
further to accommodate "normalization" I suppose. If this sort of
corruption of the merit system is further exploited in the future,
there will be little need for examinations at all. :-(

Yes It is true any federal Job pushes the affirmative action program. The
same was true when I worked on gevernment contracts building aircraft. Very
little or no experience was hired just on the basis on skin color or gender.
Myself I can see wanting to make sure there is no discrimination, but to use
discrimination to stop discrimination is no the answer and is just "wrong".

Patrick
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 15:17:46 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote in
. net::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 01:32:38 -0400, BuzzBoy
wrote in ::


The FAA is filling up with incompetent minorities
That is your big problem

Don't all government employees have to pass the same employment test?
FAA applicants are only given 5% for prior military service and an
additional 5% for a Purple Heart, so there can be a maximum 10%
advantage given to those applicants. But other than that, the playing
field should be level.


When I took the entrance exam back in the late '80's, FAA was "fast
tracking" certain types of applicants. These included women and
minorities
but not white males. The idea was apparently to speed up the hiring
process
of certain personnel types. Exam score played a lesser role in this
hiring
process than it might have otherwise. For example, I scored a 98 on the
civil service controller entrance exam. To this was added an extra 5%
for
military service, which gave me a 103 on a test where 100 was the top
score.
This put me in the top percent of the huge pool of applicants. However,
it
didn't appear to do anything to speed up getting hired. I sat around for
months. Then, I went to the Persian Gulf War. As soon as FAA realized I
was in theater, they "fast tracked" my application and I had a job
waiting
on me when I returned. As soon as I was discharged from active duty, I
had
a job interview literally within 30 days. Within 90 days I was hired and
with 150 days I was at the Academy. In the meantime, scores of other
"fast-tracked" minority and female applicants with lower test scores had
been hired before me.

When you start applying for staff and management jobs, your minority
status
or lack thereof becomes a huge factor. Management has been mostly white
and
male since the CAA days. There has been a 15 year push to "normalize"
management by promoting women and minorities over white males, so that
FAA
management "reflects the face of America." These days, the nickname
"Fast-track" is derisively applied to our ATC "stars" who spend a year or
two as controllers and then get "promoted" into traffic management or the
supervisor ranks. They are literally like the shake and bake staff NCO's
and 2nd Lieutenants of the early '70's.

In spite of this push, it has to be pointed out that the FAA is currently
*still* being run by a host of incompetent conservative, reactionary
white
male feather merchants in upper and middle management. Good controllers
control airplanes. Poor controllers run as fast as they can from
controlling airplanes. The guys currently running FAA from the helms of
upper and middle management were among the worst controllers of their
classes. Also, they have received little to no training in management.
They were promoted under the white male good-old-boy yes-man brown-nosing
patronage system, just as bad IMO as promoting on the base of race or
gender
rather than merit, which neither method seems to consider as the primary
qualification. That is our big problem, and it hasn't changed since
1981.

I'm starting to believe that the US Government ought to create a job
specialty called "FAA Management", offer high initial pay, and start
recruiting MBA college post-graduates strait into FAA management.
Promotion
out of the ATC ranks would be limited to first level supervisor. The MBA
kids could then slowly start taking over the helm and all sub-departments
of
managing the federal air traffic control system. The ATC feather
merchants
these MBA's replace could either get a headset and return to work as a
line
controller, or they could leave federal service with a swift kick in the
ass. This would leave air traffic controllers to control traffic,
allowing
the government to fire or demote the weak controllers instead of
promoting
them. Maybe then, FAA would do a hell of a lot better at not wasting tax
money on poorly managed technology projects and poor operational
budgeting.
Also, it's possible that people trained in business management at college
would be more savvy at labor relations then the current crop of failed
controllers running the system. At least they would know that it is good
form to kiss labor before you screw labor. Finally, we could privatize
all
of the ATC towers across the country. This would allow FAA to move
swivel
heads from privatized FAA towers out into the field, where they would
serve
as desperately needed radar controller reinforcements at critically
understaffed FAA Tracon and ARTCC facilities, saving the government a wad
of
money in controller personnel costs.

Chip, ZTL


Thank you for the information. I wasn't aware of the FAA fast-track
"normalization" practice. Personally, I'd prefer hiring of
safety-critical personnel to be based SOLELY ON MERIT, but with the
pro veteran bias policy long in place, the door was open to open it
further to accommodate "normalization" I suppose. If this sort of
corruption of the merit system is further exploited in the future,
there will be little need for examinations at all. :-(

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Separation isn't going to be lost as long as the aircraft executes the go
around.


Given:

FAA considers crossing a hold short line, if another aircraft is
within 3,000 feet, as an incursion, even if no collision hazard
exists.


A collision hazard definitely exists with an aircraft on the runway that
another aircraft has been cleared to land on.



The implication being, that a Loss Of Separation occurs if a
landing and/or departing Category I or II aircraft, and the
Category I aircraft operating contrary to ATC instruction, come
within the FAA Order 7110.65 '3-9-6. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION'
paragraph 'a'mandated 3,000 foot separation of each other,
results in a Category D Runway Incursion regardless if there is a
collision hazard or not. If a Category III is involved, the
mandatory separation is 6,000 feet. If the runway is clear of
aircraft, paragraph 'b' removes the mandate for separation.


The runway was not clear of aircraft.



How can you be sure that the landing aircraft and the aircraft that
necessitated the go around couldn't come within 3,000' of each other?


An aircraft executing a go around does not occupy the runway, it is not a
landing aircraft.



Here's some relevant information:
------------------------------------
http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/index.htm

http://www1.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp3/atc0309.html

3-9-5. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION

Takeoff clearance needs not be withheld until prescribed separation
exists if there is a reasonable assurance it will exist when the
aircraft starts takeoff roll.


3-9-6. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION

Separate a departing aircraft from a preceding departing or arriving
aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that it does not begin
takeoff roll until:

a. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the runway end or
turned to avert any conflict. If you can determine distances by
reference to suitable landmarks, the other aircraft needs only
be airborne if the following minimum distance exists between aircraft:
(See FIG 3-9-1 and FIG 3-9-2.)

1. When only Category I aircraft are involved- 3,000 feet.

2. When a Category I aircraft is preceded by a Category II aircraft-
3,000 feet.

3. When either the succeeding or both are Category II aircraft- 4,500
feet.

4. When either is a Category III aircraft- 6,000 feet.

5. When the succeeding aircraft is a helicopter, visual separation may
be applied in lieu of using distance minima.

FIG 3-9-1

Same Runway Separation
[View 1]


FIG 3-9-2

Same Runway Separation
[View 2]


NOTE-
Aircraft same runway separation (SRS) categories are specified in
Appendices A, B, and C and based upon the following definitions:

CATEGORY I- small aircraft weighing 12,500 lbs. or less, with a single
propeller driven engine, and all helicopters.

CATEGORY II- small aircraft weighing 12,500 lbs. or less, with
propeller driven twin-engines.

CATEGORY III- all other aircraft.

b. A preceding landing aircraft is clear of the runway. (See FIG
3-9-3.)

FIG 3-9-3

Preceding Landing Aircraft Clear of Runway


REFERENCE-
P/CG Term- Clear of the Runway.

--------------------------------------------



Runway Incursion
A Runway Incursion is defined as any occurrence at an airport
involving an aircraft, vehicle, person or object on the ground that
creates a collision hazard or results in a loss of separation with an
aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing, or intending to
land.

Surface Incident
A Surface Incident is defined as any event where unauthorized or
unapproved movement occurs within the movement area or an occurrence
in the movement area associated with the operation of an aircraft that
affects or could affect the safety of flight. Surface incidents result
from Pilot Deviations (PDs), Vehicle/Pedestrian Deviations (VPDs), or
Operational Error/Deviations (OEs/ODs).

Differences between a runway incursion and a surface incident a A
Runway Incursion occurs on a runway. A Surface Incident may occur on a
runway or a taxiway. A Runway Incursion has to have a collision hazard
or a loss of separation. The FAA categorizes Runway Incursions in four
categories depending on the potential for collision. These categories
a

A Separation decreases and participants take extreme action to
narrowly avoid a collision.

B Separation decreases and there is a significant potential for
collision.

C Separation decreases but there is ample time and distance to avoid a
potential collision.

D Little or no chance of collision but meets the definition of a
runway incursion.

When defining a runway incursion it is recognized that a wide range of
variables dramatically impact the relative severity of a runway
incursion. Of these many variables, five key parameters were selected
to add dimension to the evaluation of relative severity.
The five operational dimensions are interdependent; for example,
aircraft speed will affect available reaction time. These five
operational dimensions (listed below) formed the basis for developing
the runway incursion categories that capture the spectrum of
severity.

Operational Dimensions Affecting Runway Incursion Severity

Operational Dimensions Description

Available Reaction Time Available Reaction Time
considers how much time the pilot, controllers, and/or vehicle
operators had to react to the situation based on aircraft type, phase
of flight, and separation distance.

Evasive or Corrective Action Evasive or Corrective Action
considers the need for and type of evasive or corrective maneuvers
required to avoid a runway collision by pilots and/or air traffic
controllers.

Environmental Conditions Environmental Conditions
considers visibility, surface conditions, and light conditions.

Speed of Aircraft and/or Vehicle Speed of Aircraft and/or
Vehicle - speed as a function of aircraft type and phase of flight
(taxi, takeoff, landing)

Proximity of Aircraft and/or Vehicle Proximity of Aircraft and/or
Vehicle, or their separation distance from one another.

--------------------------------------


How is it relevant?



Of course, if the aircraft doesn't execute the go around, a
collision on the runway could result.


That statement seems a little banal, or perhaps I'm missing its point.


The point is that no harm does not necessarily mean there was no foul. How
are safety concerns to be identified if fouls are not reported unless they
result in catastrophe?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Don't all government employees have to pass the same employment test?
FAA applicants are only given 5% for prior military service and an
additional 5% for a Purple Heart, so there can be a maximum 10%
advantage given to those applicants. But other than that, the playing
field should be level.


I think the playing field is level now. Twenty years ago, if a white male
controller trainee demonstrated incompetence he was washed out while female
and minority trainees checked out. Now everybody eventually checks out
without regard to race, gender, or competence.

BuzzBoy wrote:
The FAA is filling up with incompetent minorities
That is your big problem

That's right. Center controllers are minorities, there's a lot more of
us tower controllers out here.

John Clonts wrote:
Matt Young wrote:

WAFDOF?

www.acronymfinder.com

Well said, sir!

I also wondered what it meant, but very quickly found the answer
from that site.

Larry Dighera wrote:

Don't all government employees have to pass the same employment test?
FAA applicants are only given 5% for prior military service and an
additional 5% for a Purple Heart, so there can be a maximum 10%
advantage given to those applicants. But other than that, the playing
field should be level.

Modest credit for prior military service seems fair enough (if it
is *relevant* service, at least), but how does *getting injured*
make you a better candidate?

Larry Dighera wrote in message . ..

If what you say is true, can you provide a pointer to the correct
regulation/order that does mandate that ATC controllers report all
PDs?

No, because one does not exist.
It's typical FAA starting to enforce something that someone up "high"
in the chain thinks is a good idea without a basis.